o Learning Objectives

A Model of Learning Objectives

based on

A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:
A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Among other modi�ications, Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) revision of the original Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956)
rede�ines the cognitive domain as the intersection of the Cognitive Process Dimension and the Knowledge Dimension. This document
offers a three-dimensional representation of the revised taxonomy of the cognitive domain.

Although the Cognitive Process and Knowledge dimensions are represented as hierarchical steps, the distinctions between categories are
not always clear-cut. For example, all procedural knowledge is not necessarily more abstract than all conceptual knowledge; and an
objective that involves analyzing or evaluating may require thinking skills that are no less complex than one that involves creating. It is
generally understood, nonetheless, that lower order thinking skills are subsumed by, and provide the foundation for higher order
thinking skills.

The Knowledge Dimension classi�ies four types of knowledge that learners may be expected to acquire or construct—

ranging from concrete to abstract (Table 1).

Table 1. The Knowledge Dimension – major types and subtypes

concrete knowledge abstract knowledge
metacognitive*
factual conceptual procedural
strategic knowledge
knowledge of terminology knowledge of classifications and knowledge of subject-specific knowledge about cognitive tasks,
knowledge of specific details and categories skills and algorithms including appropriate contextual
elements knowledge of principles and knowledge of subject-specific and conditional knowledge
generalizations techniques and methods self-knowledge

knowledge of theories, models, knowledge of criteria for
and structures determining when to use
appropriate procedures

(Table 1 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 46.)

*Metacognitive knowledge is a special case. In this model, “metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of [one’s own]
cognition and about oneself in relation to various subject matters . . . ” (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, p. 44).

This taxonomy provides a framework for determining and clarifying learning objectives.
Learning activities often involve both lower order and higher order thinking skills as well as a mix of concrete and abstract knowledge.

The Cognitive Process Dimension represents a continuum of increasing cognitive complexity—from lower order

thinking skills to higher order thinking skills. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) identify nineteen speci�ic cognitive processes that further
clarify the scope of the six categories (Table 2).

Table 2. The Cognitive Processes dimension — categories & cognitive processes and alternative names

lower order thinking skills higher order thinking skills

remember understand apply analyze evaluate create

recognizing interpreting executing differentiating checking generating
• identifying • clarifying • carrying out • discriminating • coordinating • hypothesizing
• paraphrasing • distinguishing • detecting
recalling • representing implementing • focusing • monitoring planning
• retrieving • translating • using • selecting • testing • designing

exemplifying organizing critiquing producing
• illustrating • finding coherence • judging • constructing
• instantiating • integrating
• outlining
classifying • parsing
• categorizing • structuring
• subsuming
attributing
summarizing • deconstructing
• abstracting
• generalizing

inferring
• concluding
• extrapolating
• interpolating
• predicting

comparing
• contrasting
• mapping
• matching

explaining
• constructing models

(Table 2 adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 67–68.)

A statement of a learning objective contains a verb (an action) and an object (usually a noun).

• The verb generally refers to [actions associated with] the intended cognitive process.

• The object generally describes the knowledge students are expected to acquire
or construct. (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001, pp. 4–5) Create
an innovative learning
portfolio.
In this model, each of the colored blocks shows an example of a
learning objective that generally corresponds with each of the various Reflect Design
combinations of the cognitive process and knowledge dimensions. on one’s an efficient project
progress.
Remember: these are learning objectives—not learning activities. workflow.

Deconstruct Judge Assemble
one’s biases. efficiency of sampling a team of
experts.
techniques.

It may be useful to think of preceding each objective Use Integrate Determine Generate
with something like: “Students will be able to . . .” techniques that match compliance with relevance of a log of daily

*Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), one’s strengths. regulations. results. activities.
Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., for among
Predict Carry out Differentiate Check
one’s response to pH tests of water high and low consistency

culture shock. samples. culture. sources.

Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). Identify Clarify Provide Select
A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and strategies for retaining assembly advice to the most complete list
instructions. novices.
assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of information. of activities.
Educational Objectives (Complete edition).

New York: Longman. Recall
how to perform
Classify Respond
CPR. adhesives by to frequently asked

toxicity. questions.

Recognize Summarize
symptoms of features of a new
exhaustion.
product.

List
primary and secondary

colors.

Model created by: Rex Heer
Iowa State University
Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching
Updated January, 2012
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
For additional resources, see:
www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html